Should states be held responsible and punished for violations of international law? The recent ruling by the International Court of Justice that Serbia cannot be held responsible for genocide in Bosnia reflects the predominant international legal position. But, such a position leaves open the possibility that states or non-state agents can never be held responsible for international crimes. This article argues that they can and should be. While most international ethicists and legal theorists reject the punishment of corporate entities such as states, this article argues that certain types of international violations can only be undertaken by states, and, as a result, states must be bear the responsibility for them. Drawing on some neglected strands in international law and political theory, the article sketches a potential institutional framework for the punishment of state crimes, particularly genocide and aggression.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Internal
Editors' Note [Full Text]
Sometimes change is revolutionary, but more often it tends to be evolutionary. That is why many readers might not even notice that there are a ...
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Essay
The Human Rights Council: A New Era in UN Human Rights Work? [Full Text]
Kofi Annan did more than any UN secretary-general before him to stress the close link between human rights and peace and security. With the creation ...
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Review
The Good Fight: Why Liberals--and Only Liberals--Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again by Peter Beinart
Peter Beinart's new book offers the Democratic Party a "new liberalism," a vision he bases on the party's history of moral leadership and success in ...